Then there is the overriding question of just what the U.S. mission in Afghanistan really is. In Iraq, the Bushies offered vague talk of driving out Al Qaeda and setting up a stable government that could defend its own borders. Obama's March address about the Afghanistan war was even cloudier, with a rhetorical emphasis on rooting out Al Qaeda--but also a call for a civilian surge to "advance security, opportunity and justice" for the Afghan people. (Bushian references to freedom and democracy have largely been retired, however.) Asked at a recent press event to describe success in Afghanistan, meanwhile, Holbrooke found a clear answer elusive. "We'll know it when we see it," he said.
But, if the definition of success isn't clear to the Obama team, the definition of defeat may be. Bush argued unabashedly that Iraq had become "the central front in the war on terror" and that withdrawing before the country had stabilized would hand Al Qaeda not only a strategic but a moral victory. Current administration officials don't publicly articulate the same rationale when discussing Afghanistan. But former CIA official Bruce Riedel, a regional expert who led the White House's Afghanistan-Pakistan review earlier this year, cited it at the Brookings panel held in August. "The triumph of jihadism or the jihadism of Al Qaeda and the Taliban in driving NATO out of Afghanistan would resonate throughout the Islamic World. This would be a victory on par with the destruction of the Soviet Union in the 1990s," Riedel said. "[T]he stakes are enormous."
Finally, Obama may have one last thing in common with Bush: personal pride. Bush was determined to prevail in Iraq because he had invaded it. And, while Obama, of course, had nothing to do with the invasion of Afghanistan, he has long supported the campaign there--including during the presidential campaign as a foil for his opposition to the Iraq war. Speaking before a group of veterans last month, Obama called Afghanistan a "war of necessity"--a phrase which politically invests him deeper in the fight. "The president has boxed himself in," says one person who has advised the administration on military strategy. "The worst possible place to be is that our justification for being in a war is that we're in a war."
Ultimately, it was only when Bush was honest with himself and the nation about Iraq--admitting that conditions were dire and ordering his politically poisonous troop surge--that he was able to avoid defeat there. Obama is already facing a strong temptation to limit America's costs in Afghanistan. But, if Obama's commitment to stabilizing that country is as serious as it sounds, he should be as mindful of GWB as he is of LBJ. Otherwise, he risks a war that leads to a resounding WTF.
Print
COMMENTS (11)
It is almost impossible for any of us to imagine the box Obama is in on Afghanistan.
First of all, there's the Commander in Chief bit. Try to imagine this greenhorn civilian sitting down with these hardcore military types. At the very least he has to project to them as a president fully capable of playing the gung ho Navy Seal persona as needed. But they are also wary that he might further damage both the effectiveness and the morale of the armed forces. He's got to allay this concern by projecting as much sympathy for [or genuine commitment to?] their cause as he can possibly muster.
Then there are all the reactionary right wingnut Rush Cheney assholes out there just chafing at the bit to p ... view full comment
It is almost impossible for any of us to imagine the box Obama is in on Afghanistan.
First of all, there's the Commander in Chief bit. Try to imagine this greenhorn civilian sitting down with these hardcore military types. At the very least he has to project to them as a president fully capable of playing the gung ho Navy Seal persona as needed. But they are also wary that he might further damage both the effectiveness and the morale of the armed forces. He's got to allay this concern by projecting as much sympathy for [or genuine commitment to?] their cause as he can possibly muster.
Then there are all the reactionary right wingnut Rush Cheney assholes out there just chafing at the bit to paint him as "a Negro soft on terrorism".
Thus personally and politically, it's almost impossible to conjure up a senario where Obama is not playing the Bush character fronting the Bush foreign policy agenda for the forseeable future. Instead, what the rest of us have to hope for is that he is no where near as incompetent. We have to hope he is Tina Fey playing Sarah Palin as a mockingbird, not Sarah Palin playing herself as a dodo bird.
Imagine HER [Sarah, not Tina] as the fucking commander in chief! Let me stop hyperventilating before I go on.
In America, the overseas agenda, as with the domestic economic agenda, is coordinated between Wall Street, the federal government and the military industrial complex. Lots of folks in the mainstream media still insist it's about spreading freedom and democracy around the globe, but they and their advertisers own the means of producing "the news" [the main organs] so whatcha gonna do, right? Folks like me [and hopefully you] just have to work around the default inflection points as we've always done.
george walton
Pretty big holes in all of that Georgie.
jacko once boxo
Pretty big holes in all of that Georgie.
jacko once boxo
Given the extent to which both you and I are as far removed from being "fully informed" about matters such as this as Crowley is no doubt convinced he is so much more informed, I merely probe more extemporaneously and into thickets few others are even inclined to take seriously.
I am interested in the cross currents between human identity, human psychology, human emotional reactions and human infatuation with "reason". Then I probe [just as precariously, intuitively, problematically] any possible relationships between these subjunctive conjectures and more rooted [often immutable] factors like political economy: power, wealth and the ideologues who pretend they can be mastered. With words an ... view full comment
Given the extent to which both you and I are as far removed from being "fully informed" about matters such as this as Crowley is no doubt convinced he is so much more informed, I merely probe more extemporaneously and into thickets few others are even inclined to take seriously.
I am interested in the cross currents between human identity, human psychology, human emotional reactions and human infatuation with "reason". Then I probe [just as precariously, intuitively, problematically] any possible relationships between these subjunctive conjectures and more rooted [often immutable] factors like political economy: power, wealth and the ideologues who pretend they can be mastered. With words and idealities, for example.
Now, rejoin intelligently and perhaps I can begin to take you....seriously? Maybe feel intrigued or even challenged? I almost never come across that here. That's why friends of mine point me in the right direction when we tussle with these things philosophically.
So, are you clever enough to parry with me?
; o )
george
George. It would be impolite for me not to respond. Take this for what it is worth. Only you can know.
You think that you have a special relationship with absurdity. You entertain the notion that because of your insights into the heart of its character thus emerge master and issue forth accordingly. i suspect this a projection by virtue of absurdity being the default polemical dismissal of competing arguments of those ' brave enough' to engage you. Reconciling your dispositions while using the cudgel of absurdity ratification is something your going to have to work out personally and privately. Working it out on these pages is, quite frankly, tedious for most. Evangelizing ' Merrily, merrily ... view full comment
George. It would be impolite for me not to respond. Take this for what it is worth. Only you can know.
You think that you have a special relationship with absurdity. You entertain the notion that because of your insights into the heart of its character thus emerge master and issue forth accordingly. i suspect this a projection by virtue of absurdity being the default polemical dismissal of competing arguments of those ' brave enough' to engage you. Reconciling your dispositions while using the cudgel of absurdity ratification is something your going to have to work out personally and privately. Working it out on these pages is, quite frankly, tedious for most. Evangelizing ' Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily. Life is but a dream has inherent hazard to intellectual honesty. Especially when you invoke as much only in the service of your own bias.
jacko:
George. It would be impolite for me not to respond.
george:
On the ontrary, it's not even impolite to call me a Jew hating Nazi in this bastion of civilized discourse. But you strike me as the "Mr. Jew hating Nazi" type. Am I wrong? ; o )
No, I think I have a special relationship with words like "absurdity". Or do you subscribe to words that suggest absurdity is something you can pull out of your pocket like a set of keys?
The "heart of its character"? Is that anything like the very nature of absurdity itself?
Let me ask you this: Which Wittgenstein metaphor do you subscribe to---language as a picture or language as a tool?
Or, perhaps, language as a picture of a tool?
Is Wittgenstein mor ... view full comment
jacko:
George. It would be impolite for me not to respond.
george:
On the ontrary, it's not even impolite to call me a Jew hating Nazi in this bastion of civilized discourse. But you strike me as the "Mr. Jew hating Nazi" type. Am I wrong? ; o )
No, I think I have a special relationship with words like "absurdity". Or do you subscribe to words that suggest absurdity is something you can pull out of your pocket like a set of keys?
The "heart of its character"? Is that anything like the very nature of absurdity itself?
Let me ask you this: Which Wittgenstein metaphor do you subscribe to---language as a picture or language as a tool?
Or, perhaps, language as a picture of a tool?
Is Wittgenstein more or less relevant in Aghanistan than The Onion?
Brave? Brave is Pat Tillman. We're just jerking each other around with the tedious bravado of a few well chosen words. Or, in your case, a few less well chosen words.
Besides, you don't even have a sense of humor. You're snide more than sniggering. You know, like me.
Try again.
george
George:Besides, you don't even have a sense of humor. You're snide more than sniggering. You know, like me.
Me: Au contrare. I responded in equanimity without all that much interest..... for what it's worth.
George:Besides, you don't even have a sense of humor. You're snide more than sniggering. You know, like me.
Me: Au contrare. I responded in equanimity without all that much interest..... for what it's worth.
George: Besides, you don't even have a sense of humor. You're snide more than sniggering. You know, like me.
Me: Au contrare. I responded in equanimity without all that much interest..... for what it's worth.
Me [not to be confused with the me above]:
Nope. Not even a giggle. Not even a grin. But I did manage a gimace or two.
You're in way of your head, of course. But equanimity is a good thing to have when you don't possess what is actually needed to sustain your end of a farce. And farce may well be the word du jour in describing Obama in Afghanistan.
Even if he manages to work things out with his military minders and Fox News.
gw
George: Besides, you don't even have a sense of humor. You're snide more than sniggering. You know, like me.
Me: Au contrare. I responded in equanimity without all that much interest..... for what it's worth.
Me [not to be confused with the me above]:
Nope. Not even a giggle. Not even a grin. But I did manage a gimace or two.
You're in way of your head, of course. But equanimity is a good thing to have when you don't possess what is actually needed to sustain your end of a farce. And farce may well be the word du jour in describing Obama in Afghanistan.
Even if he manages to work things out with his military minders and Fox News.
gw
George. You got me going a little bit. Pissed me off just a touch. But that's because you insulted my intelligence and that's my own vanity speaking.
What bothers me most is that you would fain wisdom doing the jester while servicing your own agenda. You lack sincerity as a cover for the fact don't really have anything of value to contribute beyond pretensions and your own flavor of the day. You're absurd. You fake it because that's all that you've got.
If your bottom line were Love then we would have something to discuss. But it's not. Thus I am convicted that you don't know shit.
Jacko
George. You got me going a little bit. Pissed me off just a touch. But that's because you insulted my intelligence and that's my own vanity speaking.
What bothers me most is that you would fain wisdom doing the jester while servicing your own agenda. You lack sincerity as a cover for the fact don't really have anything of value to contribute beyond pretensions and your own flavor of the day. You're absurd. You fake it because that's all that you've got.
If your bottom line were Love then we would have something to discuss. But it's not. Thus I am convicted that you don't know shit.
Jacko
jacko,
Now, aren't you glad you cashed the check I sent you to appear on Dr. Phil? Your diagnosis is spot on. Well, it is for the character I play in here.
And now you are accusing me of insulting something I have never been able to find. What does your intelligence look like? Is it both flaccid and turgid like mine?
Yes, I agree. Once you are reduced to faking your own sincerity all you've got left is the flavor of your treakly pretensious opinions about Afghanistan. Remember that? The point of Crowley's own pretensions here? But he is a genuine intellectual and you and I are reduced to this.
Did I reduce you first or did you reduce me?
What does it mean not to know shit? True, I don't know yo ... view full comment
jacko,
Now, aren't you glad you cashed the check I sent you to appear on Dr. Phil? Your diagnosis is spot on. Well, it is for the character I play in here.
And now you are accusing me of insulting something I have never been able to find. What does your intelligence look like? Is it both flaccid and turgid like mine?
Yes, I agree. Once you are reduced to faking your own sincerity all you've got left is the flavor of your treakly pretensious opinions about Afghanistan. Remember that? The point of Crowley's own pretensions here? But he is a genuine intellectual and you and I are reduced to this.
Did I reduce you first or did you reduce me?
What does it mean not to know shit? True, I don't know you...but that doesn't seem to make it any clearer.
Oh, and I Love your name. It sounds familiar though. Ever been to Neverland?
Hmm...
Fain wisdom. Did you mean, uh, feign? I prefer to fake it myself. But then I've always been a man's man.
You're not very good at this, are you?
; o )
gw
Oh I don't know George. Fain works fairly well as it is. It was a three scotch decision. So it goes.
I have some real world stuff to do. Ta-Ta.
Oh I don't know George. Fain works fairly well as it is. It was a three scotch decision. So it goes.
I have some real world stuff to do. Ta-Ta.
Jacko,
Ta ta?
Sigh. Another one bites the dust with a whimper. No bangs left I suppose. Better go back to the quarry.
gw
Jacko,
Ta ta?
Sigh. Another one bites the dust with a whimper. No bangs left I suppose. Better go back to the quarry.
gw